M. Trarieux.--“Then why do you carry a letter to ‘La Libre Parole,’ if
not to permit that journal to publish it with venomous insinuations? I
will not rest quiet under these calumnies. Never did I ask anything of
you. It was you who wanted to force your opinions upon me.”
M. Trarieux then produced a letter from M. Teyssonnière in which he
insisted on coming to show him his report in the Dreyfus case, and to
scientifically prove the guilt of the condemned man.
M. Labori.--“Why did General de Pellieux declare that we reject the
official experts, while appealing to foreigners and dentists? Why! when
the staff experts are questioned by us, they preserve an obstinate
silence. Could not General de Pellieux loosen their tongues? It is
not words that we want, but reasons. What answer, indeed, can be made
to men like M. Louis Havet, M. Molinier, or the director of the Ecole
des Chartes? I fancy that you will not disdain these men as dentists.
You think that you have said all when you have cried: ‘Good jurors, we
shall have war.’ War? Who here is afraid of it? Not you or I, General
de Pellieux. But we are entitled to know whether our chiefs are worthy
of us. Then let them fear neither discussion or light. I ask that
General de Pellieux be confronted with M. Meyer.”
The court gave its consent, and M. Labori put this question to General
de Pellieux: “Will you explain your statement that the _fac-simile_
‘Matin’ was a forgery?”
General de Pellieux.--“I maintain that among the _fac-similes_
reproduced by the journals there are some that singularly resemble
forgeries.”
M. Paul Meyer.--“But what interest had ‘Le Matin’ in committing a
forgery in 1896, when nobody was thinking of Major Esterhazy?”
General de Pellieux.--“I have always said that the reproduction made by
‘Le Matin’ was the least imperfect of all. It is not the same with the
_fac-similes_ that have appeared in certain pamphlets.”
M. Meyer.--“I have made no use of those. But the resemblance, according
to ‘Le Matin’s’ _fac-simile_, between Major Esterhazy’s writing and the
writing of the _bordereau_ is undeniable.”
General de Pellieux.--“You have never seen the original of the
_bordereau_.”
M. Meyer.--“I have seen the ‘Matin’ _fac-simile_, the fidelity of
which has been admitted by M. Bertillon. That is sufficient for me.
No one called your word in question, my general, but you are lacking
in the power of observation. As for your experts, you perhaps will
permit me to say that I do not consider myself beneath them in point of
intelligence. The president of the civil court asks me to select most
of them. Do you think that, if I had selected myself, he would have
blackballed me? I prefer an expert examination made by myself from a
_fac-simile_, to an expert examination made from an original by people
whom I do not know.”
M. Meyer then asked General de Pellieux to procure for him at least the
original photographs of the _bordereau_.
General de Pellieux.--“Oh! I would like nothing better, and I regret
that the reports of the Esterhazy experts cannot be brought here and
discussed. I was absolutely opposed to closed doors. They were declared
in spite of me, but I have no right to violate them.”
M. Labori.--“But certainly somebody has a right to authorize this
production. Let the order be given, and the light will stream forth.
Oh! we have made some progress in the last week. Here we are, almost in
agreement. If this trial goes on, we shall all walk out of here like
honest people, arm in arm. It will be admitted that there has been only
an immense misunderstanding between us, and that nothing is easier than
to honestly repair a judicial error involuntarily committed. Well,
my general, do what we ask. Get the minister of war to produce the
_bordereau_. Pray him to show us this bit of transparent paper which
is so securely locked up in his department, and let everybody see it.
If it were not that certain minds are anchored in a blind obstinacy,
we should soon see that in this whole matter there is not wherewith to
whip a cat. It is a great pity that M. Couard is not here. It would be
a pleasure to witness a discussion between him and M. Meyer, his former
professor in the Ecole des Chartes.”
“I ask nothing better,” cried a stentorian voice, from the middle of
the auditorium, and through the crowd pushed M. Couard, carrying a
large package.
“I do not wish it to be said,” he shouted, “that I have not the
profoundest respect for my old teacher. But what is the Ecole des
Chartes? The Ecole des Chartes, I know it. I have been through it.
Do they teach anything there about the handwriting of the nineteenth
century? The fifteenth, the sixteenth, I even grant you the seventeenth
and eighteenth, if you please; but contemporary handwriting? Why, there
is not a single chair of modern handwriting there. I revere M. Meyer
as a professor of Roman philology, but as an expert in handwriting he
is like a child just born. Why, I was present at the development of a
thesis on the famous flag of Jeanne Hachette, which is preserved at
Beauvais. The candidate had deciphered upon it all sorts of interesting
fifteenth-century inscriptions. I twisted with laughter. His
description was based upon a flag manufactured in 1840 to replace the
true one, which is worm-eaten, and of which nothing is left but shreds,
upon which it is impossible to read anything. ‘Each one to his trade,
then the cows will be well kept.’”
M. Meyer.--“If there is no instruction in writings at the Ecole des
Chartes, where did you get your instruction, Monsieur Expert?”